It is important to note that now that the Cameron Farms question has begun
the public hearing process, none of the comments about the proposal over
this list server can be read by City Council members. It would be
considered a biased source since it is outside the public hearing. They
can't read or talk about this issue with anyone about this. I suggest that
someone print out all of the comments of the past two weeks and read them
into the record tonight. At a very minimum, someone should print out these
comments and ask Dale Pernula to read them into the record tonight.
Tom
>Visionaries,
>
>I can only hope that every Moscow P & Z member, and every city council
>member has visited the Cameron property, as I and three others did today.
>There is nothing like seeing the morphology of the land, which is not
>revealed at all in the two-dimensional map of the proposed development.
>
>Although I regret that I cannot attend the public hearing on Monday
>evening in the council chambers, I would welcome anyone attending to raise
>the following questions, or to submit my remarks for the public record.
>
>Initially, I was encouraged by the fact that the Camerons hired Arendt,
>and also persuaded by Wendy McClure's previous post. However, visiting the
>land (with a geologist) has clouded my earlier enthusiasm. Several
>critical issues must be raised.
>
>1. The rocks beneath the soil are granite (the same as Moscow
>Mountain) rather than basalt. Drinking water, not to mention an adequate
>water supply in the case of fire, is surely problematic. Wells will be
>unproductive relative to the Moscow area. Is there a common water system
>proposed for the entire development? Is it anticipated that water will be
>drawn from a tank that pumps water from another source? Is each
>parcel owner on their own for water as on Moscow Mountain?
>
>2. The septic system or waste water impact raises additional
>concerns:
>
> a. What is the history or policy of the health district in siting
>septic systems in similar soils, and what are the slope criteria for
>drain fields? (This is seriously steep land if the housing is located on
>the ridge.)
>
> b. Given the added water that a septic system produces, coupled
>with the potential saturation in the winter and spring seasons, what is
>the risk of landslides? Some of the property is currently not plowed or
>farmed, which I assume is due to the steepness and possibly the
>instability of the slopes.
>
>3. The existing gravel road was seriously snow-drifted today
>(following warming temperatures and little snow accumulation). Who assumes
>responsibility for clearing the road so that it is passable? We had to
>park at the end of the pavement and walk off road due to the drifts.
>
>4. Since the open space is in low ground and the construction sites
>are on high ground, the soil will be heavily disturbed leading to the
>likelihood of runoff and erosion that could match what we have
>seen across the road from the Chinese Village.
>
>There is no question that the vista is a "gold mine" as one of our group
>observed. Yet, once we evaluated the land use, I couldn't come to any
>other conclusion than this is a better plan for the WRONG SITE. I applaud
>the introduction of an open space concept, but 25 one-acre lots are not
>exactly clustered housing, and the contour of the land does not invite
>development for anyone with vision.
>
>If not here...where? If not now...when? All I can say is...not here,
>not now.
>
>Susan
>
>*-------------------------------------------------------------*
>| Susan Palmer Phone: 208-885-6616 |
>| Education Programming FAX: 208-885-9494 |
>| Coordinator e-mail:susanp@uidaho.edu |
>| Women's Center |
>| University of Idaho "People convinced against |
>| Moscow, Idaho 83844-1064 their will, hold the same |
>| opinion still. |
>*-------------------------------------------------------------*